Is Anarchism Left Wing? Or Is It Something Else?

Economics Political Theory
1

The left libertarians love to talk about the lefties being the first anarchists, but is that really true? Even if it were, how much of anarchism can be described as ‘left-wing’ or collectivist? The lefties are being just as ‘vulgar’ as any AnCaps when they ignore Burke, Godwin, Zo a’Axa, the Personalists, the Nietzschean anarchists, etc; many of whom long predate Proudhon; likewise they forget that Proudhon was a racist, conservative Christian patriarch. And whither Georges Palante with his pessimistic misanthropy?

What about the anti-semitic anarchists, of which there were not a few? What about the Destructionist, or the men like the Bonnet gang, or the illegalist, elitist Renzo Novatore? Oh, I guess we should just forget them because that doesn’t fit into the left-wing paradigm. No true Scottsman, after all.

Anarchism is not left or right, it is not anti-capitalist or capitalist; it defines an attitude towards political states. Some anarchists hate the state because they are ‘anti-authoritarian’, some hate the state because they think it subverts the superior man; some don’t even hate the state, just the stupidity that causes the masses to obey it. The leftoidal anarchists need to get a reality check and realize that anarchism goes back at least to Epicurus who has about as much in common with Proudhon or Bakunin as he does with Ayn Rand.

2

It’s in my latest understandings that I’d have to agree with the prospect of anarchism being neither left nor right. From a literal political POV (imo, ignoring the prefixes we all love to prattle on our likes & dislikes for), it bypasses the typcial left/right axis (and I would even say most other ‘x’ or ‘y’, ‘either this or that’ axis), by syncreticising (I guess this is a word now?) ideas from both of those sides & various others.

I believe this was aptly summarised in fewer words by Bakunin, when he clarified anarchism was not against all authority per se, but that “there is no fixed and constant authority, but a continual exchange of mutual, temporary, and, above all, voluntary authority and subordination.” [Dieu et l’état, “What Is Authority?”; 1882.*]

You can easily see both the respect for “conservative” concerns for authority that works, is effective, perhaps even traditionally effective (i.e. a long line of excellence in generational mom & pop stores, where authority certainly may be limited), & the “liberal” concerns for authority that does not work, is not effective or artifical.

This is but a minor example, but you can find them elsewhere if you look.

People speak of a third way in referrence to either centrism (3rd Way Statism), or National Socialism, but latley I’ve grown quite confused that if it wasn’t a century or two ago already, why hadn’t anarchism ever been considered a legitmate 3rd way in of itself, since so many statist spectrums seem to popularly rely on merley two axis of opposing criteria.

Even with more, such authority v. freedom, you’re still using pairs of oppositional relationships, when reality itself is can be less clear cut than a graph on a piece of paper.

Anyways, I’m rambling. This could potentially become a good topic, given enough time & forum dust :slight_smile:

* Like the 67th time I’ve used this referrence. I will try to refrain from using it for at least another 3 months, however, when I’m bookmark mining for intelligence.